I started a colony of nothing but psychopaths. They butchered a couple tribals and at them for dinner in between farming. They were upset over the cannibalism...?
Seems to me, cannibalism shouldn't affect psychopaths in one way or the other. Meat is meat, so why the sudden moral dilemma when it's a person?
Just because some is a serial murderer/sadist doesn't mean they actually enjoy eating human flesh. I think the system makes sense as is.
well, they should neither get a penalty nor a bonus, as they don't enjoy it, but they don't really care about it, either.
One of reasons cannibalism is taboo is because there's increased chance of getting human parasites and diseases. When you eat pork, veal or fish many parasites are filtered out right away because your body is too different. For the same reason human shit is not used as fertilizer. Not because we have a shortage of it.
Quote from: blub01 on August 31, 2015, 07:54:00 AM
well, they should neither get a penalty nor a bonus, as they don't enjoy it, but they don't really care about it, either.
Again, I disagree - being a psychopath hardly implies being a cannibal or even being "ok" with eating human flesh. They are too very different conditions.
being a psychopath means you don't give a sh*t about what happens to other people - meaning it is unlikely that a psychopath cares about a human being killed and butchered for his dinner.
Assuming that psychopath mean sociopath you might have a case in that they shouldn't view it as immoral and therefore not get a mood penalty.
I decided to google both term and this link stands out.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
The author of the article says "Leading experts disagree on whether there are meaningful differences between the two conditions. I contend that there are clear and significant distinctions between them."
So there seems to be some conjecture in the field between the professionals so unless your a professional yourself and have done the studies I would say that the "Leading experts disagree" part hold most sway... this is especially true when psychopath and sociopath are not clinical terms, both are categorized under the banner of "antisocial personality disorder" with the distinction being only in symptoms.
This article I said sociopaths are hot-headed and psychopaths are cold-hearted but both lack empathy or morality with this being more pronounced in psychopaths.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference?page=2 (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference?page=2)
So while I don't think psychopaths are inherently cannibalistic I don't think they would have an issue with cannibalism.
Psychopaths may not eat human flesh out of health concerns.
Just because a Psychopath doesn't care for anyone else doesn't mean they will eat anyone. They care only about themselves and could care less about who he's butchering. That doesn't mean that person particularly enjoys eating other people, they would still think "That's disgusting" or "I'm not suppose to be eating this." Two different conditions that can both go hand-in-hand and not. You could be cannibalistic, but not psychopathic because you care for your own people and others, but only eat the flesh of the fallen enemy (a cultural example.) You could be psychopathic, but not cannibalistic because you just don't care about others. You only care about yourself, simply it. Jimmy's head may be on your dinner plate, yeah you don't care that it was him or he was the most caring person, but you would still find it revolting that someone wants you to eat a person. It's just natural for humans not to eat others, even if you have a mental illness to not care for others, you'd still think it's not best for you to eat them.
Put it this way, psychopaths may not care about others, but they do care about themselves, and eating human flesh is a bad way to care for one's self (due to the previous mentions of diseases).
Quote from: Keychan on August 31, 2015, 07:33:26 PM
Jimmy's head may be on your dinner plate, yeah you don't care that it was him or he was the most caring person, but you would still find it revolting that someone wants you to eat a person. It's just natural for humans not to eat others, even if you have a mental illness to not care for others, you'd still think it's not best for you to eat them.
Why is eating human meat revolting?
At best I can see A psychopath acting as if their revolted to hide their true nature but being genuinely revolted would require feeling that its wrong on some level.
Quote from: b0rsuk on August 31, 2015, 01:54:32 PM
Psychopaths may not eat human flesh out of health concerns.
Quote from: StorymasterQ on August 31, 2015, 09:00:16 PM
Put it this way, psychopaths may not care about others, but they do care about themselves, and eating human flesh is a bad way to care for one's self (due to the previous mentions of diseases).
To say that the heath concerns would stop a psychopath is something I find that doubtful not only do most people not know of these issues but I've read a couple psychology articles and the consensus I got was that sociopaths are concerned about taking risks but but are hot-headed while psychopaths don't suffer stress or anxiety about risk taking and cold-hearted and calculating.
I think its unlikely that a psychopath would be so concerned about the health issues of cannibalism as to suffer a mood penalty.
The word 'sociopath' has largely replaced 'psychopath', because the media and journalists abused the phrase 'psychopatic killer' until 'psychopath' meant exclusively a killer in public awareness. It's similar to how most people think "hacker" means a "computer thief" to public.
it might be an interesting notion to actually consider the health concerns in game, and maybe make cooks use human flesh last?(if they don't already do that)
A lot of people are not so much "morally" opposed to cannibalism, but just grossed out by it, similar to how people are grossed out by the idea of eating "pet animals" like dogs and cats. Similarly, psychopaths can be grossed out by things just like normal people. Source: am psychopath.
Quote from: b0rsuk on September 01, 2015, 01:19:29 AM
The word 'sociopath' has largely replaced 'psychopath', because the media and journalists abused the phrase 'psychopatic killer' until 'psychopath' meant exclusively a killer in public awareness. It's similar to how most people think "hacker" means a "computer thief" to public.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are both "antisocial personality disorder" just with different symptoms, what the general public think is largely irrelevant, its like necromancy means to divine the future from the dead not control the undead and anybody who say other wise is technically incorrect.
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/you-are-technically-correct-the-best-kind-of-correct-300x225.jpg)
that being said I understand that ultimately language evolves and the meaning of words change though popular usage so your point does stand and I prefer to ignore the "correct" use of necromancy, I just like being contrary :P
Quote from: Songleaves on September 01, 2015, 02:17:22 AM
A lot of people are not so much "morally" opposed to cannibalism, but just grossed out by it, similar to how people are grossed out by the idea of eating "pet animals" like dogs and cats. Similarly, psychopaths can be grossed out by things just like normal people. Source: am psychopath.
this is interesting, where you diagnosed by a professional psychiatrist? because the official term is "antisocial personality disorder" which is a catchall for both sociopaths and psychopaths.
The reason I ask Is because from what I've read its far more likely that you'd be a sociopath then a psychopath if you find something like cannibalism "Gross" as that seem like an emotional or gut reaction.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference)
"A psychopath doesn't have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won't feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he's not "found out," Tompkins says."
"A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it's weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won't stop his behavior."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath)
"Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned."
"Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people's trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature."
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/ (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/)
"Psychopaths, in general, have a hard time forming real emotional attachments with others. Instead, they form artificial, shallow relationships designed to be manipulated in a way that most benefits the psychopath. People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath's goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others."
"Sociopaths, in general, tend to be more impulsive and erratic in their behavior than their psychopath counterparts. While also having difficulties in forming attachments to others, some sociopaths may be able to form an attachment to a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, most sociopaths don't hold down long-term jobs or present much of a normal family life to the outside world."
(http://psychologia.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/psycopath-vs-sociopath-infographic1.jpg)
Now none of this means your not a psychopath but it does make me question it.
I.... uh... am very sorry, that was actually a joke, I don't really think I'm a psychopath. Psychopathy isn't even a sanctioned medical diagnosis, although many ideas of psychopathy have been put forward. But since you wrote all this out I will go ahead and respond!
QuoteThe reason I ask Is because from what I've read its far more likely that you'd be a sociopath then a psychopath if you find something like cannibalism "Gross" as that seem like an emotional or gut reaction.
Psychopaths are usually regarded as emotionally shallow, lacking in empathy and remorse, but not totally lacking in any emotion, after all it's not like their entire limbic system has just disappeared. A mild squeamishness isn't incompatible.
Also I will question attaching the qualifier of violent to those with anti-social personality disorder as was done in that graphic. In general there are many different types of psychological conditions that are only ever studied through mandatory psyche sessions through the criminal justice system because people who have these conditions do not seek out treatment themselves, therefore we only see the violent people with these conditions. We simply don't have the demographic data to well characterize these groups, and that is why violent behavior is not mandatory for diagnosis with anti-social personality disorder. Additionally, although it has been classically viewed that such people lack empathy, it has been an emerging view that such individuals are just adept at compartmentalizing and ignoring empathy, and do so to further their own selfish interests, rather than them simply lacking the ability to experience empathy all together. Personally, I believe lacking in empathy, and being able to manipulate other's, is a paradox, so I agree with the emerging view and I believe that if someone truly lacked any empathy they would be a potato, but that's just my view on the matter.
Its probably my fault for not getting the joke, its hard to get a sense of infliction from text.
I will admit that a part of my motivation for asking is that many people on the internet self-diagnose, my grand-mother for instance has every disease she reads about. ::)
I know about the problem getting accurate data ASPD because as one psychiatrist said sociopaths/psychopaths don't seek help and have no motivation to get better, its generally society and the law that want's them to be "Fixed" while they are perfectly content being what they are.
As for violence I'm sure not all people with ASPD are violent criminals they just don't have any moral qualms about being violent to get what they want, there is also some evidence to suggest that really ruthless businessmen, you know the ones that will do anything they can get away with to succeed have sociopathic tendency's and like many psychological conditions they aren't mutually exclusive, you can have multiple conditions and can make it difficult to tell where one ends and another begins impacting data gathering further.
As for empathy I think fits rather well was an analogy I read.
Have you ever slept on your arm and woken up with it feeling dead or numb? you can still feel it there but finer sensations are dulled to the point to where its almost unnoticeable, well that's what having ASPD is like, your empathy is numbed making it easy to ignore or just not notice at all.
So how much sensation remains would very between people but there enough of a base line that even the "Deadest" can mimic what they see even if they don't "feel" it themselves and while I don't that its a perfect description as is the case for most analogy's, I do think it can give some understanding to a laymen.
One thing that I do like about this thread is that its lead me to learning about a subject that I've only ever learnt about though documentary's on serial killers, which provides a very limited view on the subject.
Being psychopathic does not mean you have no sense of right and wrong, no ethics, or no morals. While there are aspects to psychopathy and sociopathy that are fundamentally different from the norm, that doesn't mean anyone who is psychopathic or sociopathic is some sort of cartoonish chaotic evil facsimile of a human. An inability to feel empathy or remorse doesn't mean you're somehow immune to the social conditioning inherent to society.
A psychopath can, and likely is as a general rule, just as disgusted about eating human meat as anyone else. It's a socially conditioned taboo response that doesn't necessarily require any empathy at all.
Quote from: SaintD on September 02, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
Being psychopathic does not mean you have no sense of right and wrong, no ethics, or no morals. While there are aspects to psychopathy and sociopathy that are fundamentally different from the norm, that doesn't mean anyone who is psychopathic or sociopathic is some sort of cartoonish chaotic evil facsimile of a human. An inability to feel empathy or remorse doesn't mean you're somehow immune to the social conditioning inherent to society.
A psychopath can, and likely is as a general rule, just as disgusted about eating human meat as anyone else. It's a socially conditioned taboo response that doesn't necessarily require any empathy at all.
but, as he doesn't feel a moral obligation or something, he should get along with it when there is no other choice. i think.
I think at least
some of the issues that lead to the rampant misunderstandings is the thinking that psychopaths/sociopaths has no morals/ethics/sense of right etc.
Consider this:
RIGHT----------MEH-----------WRONG-------------------------------->FUCKING WRONG
Where would you put [yourself, a psychopath, a sociopath] on that scale for the following activities:
- Caring for chickens
- Killing chickens
- Eating chickens
- Petting kittens
- Killing kittens
- Eating kittens
- Hugging a person
- Killing a person
- Eating a person
A normal person would probably go from left to right and back again. How about a psychopath? A sociopath? Should they be MEH for all the above? Would they? Would there not be
any wavering to the left or right side?
Quote from: SaintD on September 02, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
A psychopath can, and likely is as a general rule, just as disgusted about eating human meat as anyone else. It's a socially conditioned taboo response that doesn't necessarily require any empathy at all.
Did you read my overly long posts or check the links I provided?
One of the defining things about ASPD is that they don't care about "socially conditioned taboo's".
QuoteThe fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them. Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:
A disregard for laws and social mores
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt
A tendency to display violent behavior
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath)
So why is it disgusting if not for morals or societal mores?
Quote from: JesterHell on September 02, 2015, 10:04:52 PM
Did you read my overly long posts or check the links I provided?
One of the defining things about ASPD is that they don't care about "socially conditioned taboo's".
You've also ignored posts the stated there are biological/health reasons against cannibalism, not just socially conditioned mores.
Quote from: StorymasterQ on September 02, 2015, 10:00:46 PM
I think at least some of the issues that lead to the rampant misunderstandings is the thinking that psychopaths/sociopaths has no morals/ethics/sense of right etc.
Consider this:
RIGHT----------MEH-----------WRONG-------------------------------->FUCKING WRONG
Where would you put [yourself, a psychopath, a sociopath] on that scale for the following activities:
- Caring for chickens
- Killing chickens
- Eating chickens
- Petting kittens
- Killing kittens
- Eating kittens
- Hugging a person
- Killing a person
- Eating a person
A normal person would probably go from left to right and back again. How about a psychopath? A sociopath? Should they be MEH for all the above? Would they? Would there not be any wavering to the left or right side?
its not so much as they have none, evidence suggests that they do have personal values, its just there values are entirely independent from society's values, to put it another way they can freely choose what their values are rather then following "Gut Feelings" about whats right and wrong.
I'm a morale relativist https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response (https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response) so in my mind there is no correct answer to your question as its all dependent on your subjective morale values which are largely formed during childhood and refined during adolescents.
You can tell a child "Its wrong don't do it" during that age when they believe anything and their likely to believe it but as they get older reasons "why" are needed, this is the issue animal rights groups have in trying to convince adults because they've learnt a value system and require reasons to change it.
Quote from: akiceabear on September 02, 2015, 10:35:21 PM
You've also ignored posts the stated there are biological/health reasons against cannibalism, not just socially conditioned mores.
No I didn't ???, I stated that I don't believe that its an adequate reason for disgust.
Quote from: JesterHell on September 01, 2015, 12:45:38 AM
To say that the heath concerns would stop a psychopath is something I find that doubtful not only do most people not know of these issues but I've read a couple psychology articles and the consensus I got was that sociopaths are concerned about taking risks but but are hot-headed while psychopaths don't suffer stress or anxiety about risk taking and cold-hearted and calculating.
I think its unlikely that a psychopath would be so concerned about the health issues of cannibalism as to suffer a mood penalty.
while everybody here as access to the internet and can find out what the health risks are the main purpose of the thread is if the
in-game psychopaths should get a penalty and I don't think most rimworlders would have the required knowledge to have strong feeling about the health issues.
But lets say they did have that knowledge at best it would be a reduced penalty that's not as strong as the base line "emotional" one and while you might not eliminate the risks you can reduce them if you have it "Burn to a Crisp" instead of "Bloody as Hell" because the main reason for cooking food in the first place is to reduce the risk of parasites and disease.
JesterHell - I disagree - I think you're being too reductionist here. Also, this thread is turning into a silly debate/troll, so I'm ducking out. Just voicing one last time that I think separation of the traits makes sense and is good for gameplay.
When you read the cannibal trait, it states something around the lines of the person having ''tried it once and liked it''.
Now, this doesn't imply that the cannibal person actually killed, or doesn't care, about the person he/she ate, it just states that he/she likes the taste of human meat, now, a cannibal psychopath would simply not care, while a normal cannibal might.
I don't think a Psychopath would necessarily enjoy cannibalism or receive a buff from it. Psychopathy in psychological terms is similar to extreme selfishness; it's one of the many things on the checklist professionals look for when coming up with a diagnosis.
Now, they simply might not like human flesh the same as they might not like asparagus, that's fine. But as far as a Psychopath is concerned, a chunk of meat is a chunk of meat. "Bob's dead. He doesn't need his leg anymore. Gimme!"
Quote from: akiceabear on September 02, 2015, 11:12:29 PM
JesterHell - I disagree - I think you're being too reductionist here. Also, this thread is turning into a silly debate/troll, so I'm ducking out. Just voicing one last time that I think separation of the traits makes sense and is good for gameplay.
I never said you have to agree, your entitled to your opinion.
I disagree with the "reductionist" statement as I never said that being a psychopath is being a cannibal (correlation is not causation) just that the reason that they are not cannibals is not connected to morality, empathy or social more's and when you remove these reason whats left? also I never wanted psychopaths to get a bonus to mood for cannibalism I just don't think that a penalty applies.
A silly debate would be debating if the theory of relativity is true, not what the affects of an already in-game trait should be and as for being a troll? a troll does not give links to references or make arguments that are based on professional data? I do however like playing "devils advocate" and if you consider that being a troll then I worry about the future of debating as a whole.
Quotea devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position
It is pretty much done by now, considering that we've had all arguments stated at least twice. we could just, like, make a poll or something, and when people post an actually new thought on the matter, it gets included.
first 3 options would be
1. Psychopaths should be unaffected by cannibalism(my opinion)
2. Psychopaths should get a minor mood penalty due to them not liking the health issues
3. Psychopaths should(for whatever reason) be just as disgusted as non-psychopaths
oh, and to entirely change the nature of the thread, what about some "high-functioning sociopath" trait that gives every trait +5/+10 or something, and makes the AI better, Sherlock(the TV series called "Sherlock", don't really know the "real Sherlock Holmes, or other tv series) like?
Quote from: JesterHell on September 02, 2015, 10:04:52 PMDid you read my overly long posts or check the links I provided?
Yes, except the problem is you're taking a layman's totalitarian view from cherry picked and poorly understood sources. 'Disregard for laws and social mores' is not some sort of on/off switch, and the things you're quoting are simplified
guidelines regarding extremely complicated clinical diagnosis of inherently unique individuals, which you've dragged out of a tiny article. Even one of your own links will quickly tell you that 'psychopath' is not a clinical term and doesn't exist as a diagnosis, which is why you're also quoting from an article by a
criminologist who is describing what is basically
criminal 'psychopathy' because that's the lens through which he is describing the term.
That's the crux of the problem. You're trying to mash a 'Hollywood Psychopath' criminal stereotype into what is actually referred to as antisocial personality disorder by the psychology institution, and backing it up using an article written by....drumroll....
a criminologist. Had you actually bothered to pick out the Hollywood criminal view of psychopathy as presented by a guy whose activities include publishing books about serial killers, and instead investigated the root psychological concerns in the catchall morass of 'psychopath', you wouldn't be acting like psychopaths are some sort of Hannibal cutout who'll uncaringly start eating people when their plane crashes in the mountains.
Similar to akiceabear, I too don't wish to debate psychopathy. But I will question the notion that cannibalism is a health hazard. I am unaware of any particular risks associated with eating properly cooked human meat. If anyone has any information on that, however, then I would be all ears.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
Yes
Really?
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
You're trying to mash a 'Hollywood Psychopath' criminal stereotype into what is actually referred to as antisocial personality disorder by the psychology institution
Because, here a quote of myself.
Quote from: JesterHell on September 01, 2015, 04:12:07 AM
Sociopaths and psychopaths are both "antisocial personality disorder" just with different symptoms,
and further down in that same post.
Quote from: JesterHell on September 01, 2015, 04:12:07 AM
this is interesting, where you diagnosed by a professional psychiatrist? because the official term is "antisocial personality disorder" which is a catchall for both sociopaths and psychopaths.
So I do know this.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
except the problem is you're taking a layman's totalitarian view
Totalitarian view? how did you get that?
Quote from: JesterHell on September 01, 2015, 11:09:55 PM
I know about the problem getting accurate data ASPD because as one psychiatrist said sociopaths/psychopaths don't seek help and have no motivation to get better, its generally society and the law that want's them to be "Fixed" while they are perfectly content being what they are.
As for violence I'm sure not all people with ASPD are violent criminals they just don't have any moral qualms about being violent to get what they want, there is also some evidence to suggest that really ruthless businessmen, you know the ones that will do anything they can get away with to succeed have sociopathic tendency's and like many psychological conditions they aren't mutually exclusive, you can have multiple conditions and can make it difficult to tell where one ends and another begins impacting data gathering further.
As for empathy I think fits rather well was an analogy I read.
Have you ever slept on your arm and woken up with it feeling dead or numb? you can still feel it there but finer sensations are dulled to the point to where its almost unnoticeable, well that's what having ASPD is like, your empathy is numbed making it easy to ignore or just not notice at all.
that doesn't read as totalitarian to me, I'd also like to point out that I use ASPD in this post as well.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
from cherry picked
Do you mean I cherry picked the article's? because its not like I looked at a hundred articles and chose these as the best, I looked for ones from people with professional qualifications and they seemed to support my stance so I used them or did you mean that I cherry picked from those articles? I did that because I think its better then quoting the entire thing and gave the link so other could get the whole article if they wanted.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
Disregard for laws and social mores' is not some sort of on/off switch
What do you mean by this? because I don't get what you mean by on/off switch. The evidence suggests they have a disregard for laws and social mores and while there may be groups or individuals whom they associate or "connect" with they only pretend to fellow/agree with the more general laws and social mores for their own benefit or avoid the consequences.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
the things you're quoting are simplified guidelines regarding extremely complicated clinical diagnosis of inherently unique individuals
How else are you supposed to do it? by this I mean you don't explain quantum physics to a layman using the terms that an actual quantum physicist would use as it'll go over their head so of course I'm going to use the "simplified" explanations because I'm not a psychologist and a lot of the jargon they would use talking to each other would require me having studied psychology to fully understand.
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
the crux of the problem. You're trying to mash a 'Hollywood Psychopath' criminal stereotype into what is actually referred to as antisocial personality disorder by the psychology institution
No I'm not, how did you get this idea?
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
and backing it up using an article written by....drumroll....a criminologist.Had you actually bothered to pick out the Hollywood criminal view of psychopathy as presented by a guy whose activities include publishing books about serial killers,
The fact that one source is a criminologist does not change the others aren't nor does it negate the criminologist's opinion as He quotes in that very article the American Psychiatric Associations DSM-5.
Quote from: JesterHell on September 02, 2015, 10:04:52 PM
QuoteThe fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them. Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:
A disregard for laws and social mores
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt
A tendency to display violent behavior
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath)
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
and instead investigated the root psychological concerns in the catchall morass of 'psychopath'
Everything I've read has supported that morality, empathy and social more are not concerns for those with ASPD, that they mimic the reaction's of those around them show disgust when other do and joy when others do with the evidence suggesting that the rare times when they do genuinely care its an exception rather then the rule, so what more "Investigation" do you want me to do?
Quote from: SaintD on September 03, 2015, 03:15:33 PM
you wouldn't be acting like psychopaths are some sort of Hannibal cutout who'll uncaringly start eating people when their plane crashes in the mountains.
so if morality, empathy and social mores are not something they are concerned about why would they they care? what is the reason? the motivation? there are only two reasons I can think of.
1. that they know about the potential heath risks and how that may effect them
as for exactly how unhealthy well there this.
QuoteIf you eat human brains, you may contract a disease that will return the favor: kuru will eat your brain. Worse yet, there is no cure.
http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/spotlight-why-cannibalism-bad-you-72612 (http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/spotlight-why-cannibalism-bad-you-72612)
Quote
- The world's first known cannibals ate each other to satisfy their nutritional needs.
- The cannibals belonged to the species Homo antecessor, related to both Neanderthals and modern humans.
- Homo antecessor appears to have preyed on competing groups, treating victims like any other meat source.
http://news.discovery.com/human/health/first-cannibals-nutrition.htm (http://news.discovery.com/human/health/first-cannibals-nutrition.htm)
Most parasites can be killed with a good cooking so only eat "very-well done" meat and I've also found vague unsubstantiated claims that its the organs like the kidneys and liver that are the worst for consumption but was unable to find any professional opinion on this.
2. that they are merely pretending to care so as to hide their true nature
This is something that every source seems to think those with ASPD are capable of.
And even after all this you haven't given a reason why you think they would have a problem with cannibalism other then your personal opinion.
You also make the statement that I'm wrong and my source's are inadequacy but don't give any of your own? I'm open to changing my stance if you give me reason too but as of writing this you haven't.
Finally the whole purpose of this topic was about whether the in game psychopath should get a penalty from eating human meat it was never an argument that they like it just that they wouldn't dislike it or be disgusted and I said no then gave my reasons why when an opposing argument was made, also this game is already largely abstracted in many areas and an "In-Depth" simulation of psychology while awesome is outside the scale of this game so its just a question of what that abstraction means for psychopathy.
Quote from: blub01 on September 03, 2015, 01:37:53 AM
It is pretty much done by now, considering that we've had all arguments stated at least twice. we could just, like, make a poll or something, and when people post an actually new thought on the matter, it gets included.
first 3 options would be
1. Psychopaths should be unaffected by cannibalism(my opinion)
2. Psychopaths should get a minor mood penalty due to them not liking the health issues
3. Psychopaths should(for whatever reason) be just as disgusted as non-psychopaths
oh, and to entirely change the nature of the thread, what about some "high-functioning sociopath" trait that gives every trait +5/+10 or something, and makes the AI better, Sherlock(the TV series called "Sherlock", don't really know the "real Sherlock Holmes, or other tv series) like?
+1
Yeah let just stop the debate and get a vote so we can be done with this topic.
I'm familiar with kuru, but there are lots of animals that if you eat their brains you may contract a fatal prion disease (like cows and goats), and since in Rimworld you can only consume meat from humans I was limiting my discussion to people's meat.
Quote from: Songleaves on September 05, 2015, 03:31:25 PM
I'm familiar with kuru, but there are lots of animals that if you eat their brains you may contract a fatal prion disease (like cows and goats), and since in Rimworld you can only consume meat from humans I was limiting my discussion to people's meat.
Yeah, I looked around a bit but couldn't find anything concrete its probably because its hard to get data on cannibals because they don't exactly put their hand up during question time.
That being said I don't see why the meat (muscle) would be dangerous if you have it very well done but I couldn't find any studies on it.
here's a easy test:
your standing at a rail road with a lever in front of you. there is a train and its heading towards a cross section. on the left there is a group of people tied to the tracks and on the right there is one person tied to the tracks. and you have to chooses who dies right?
question 2:
you come to a rail road and you notice a group of people stuck to the track. there is a fat person standing in front of you and you calculate that somebody his size could derail the train and save those people. do you push the fat guy onto the tracks and kill him and save the group of people on the tracks? or do you stand there and watch as a group of people get ran over by a train?
the questions are not very different though for some people they can be very hard. normal people would at least hesitate to answer. psychopaths would not hesitate to push the fat guy assuming they want to save the most people. They would also never in there life feel guilt for killing the fat guy or one person.
Honestly in a colony builder it shouldn't be that different. Do i save my colony (the people who i have manipulated to help me survive) and more importantly myself from starvation and butcher someone/eat them? or do we all stave to death? not that different from the question above. the difference being the people down the tracks are the rest of your colony and the person in-front of you being a raider, the possibility of the derailed train hitting you being disease. a psychopath wouldn't hesitate and would never feel guilty about it.
In my opinion any morale bonuses/de buffs that are not directly about the psychopath himself shouldn't count. as for cannibalism it should also not count because how is eating this other person be different than eating that bunny rabbit you hunted yesterday? or your pet Labrador? any colonist can kill all your pet dogs with no morale bonuses yet in a survival situation i would value the life of my Labrador alot more than eating the person who tried to kill me in the long run when i know there'll be no rescue ever. what will get me farther in the long run? for psychopaths its all about themselves so they wouldn't care.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about all of this. but i hope this puts a new spin on what you thought about psychopaths. i believe that psychopaths should not get any morale bonuses/de buffs that are not directly about the psychopath himself including cannibalism.